News

Land of Lady Boys? Thailand is Not the LGBT Paradise it Appears

BANGKOK – It is a country known to the world for its gay parties and transgender beauty pageants, a Land of Smiles that is welcoming to all.

But tell that to members of Thailand’s LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) community and you might receive a puzzled frown.

While Thailand is one of the most progressive countries in Asia regarding LGBTI rights, and its capital Bangkok often tops lists of gay-friendly tourist destinations, activists in the country say the gay community suffers not only from a lack of recognition but from laws and a society that actively discriminate against them.

“Abroad you may think that in Thailand there is a very open space to express your gender identity if you are LGBTI. But in reality, it is very hard to express our identity because we don’t have the legal support,” says transgender activist Kath Khangpiboon.

Kath has suffered this discrimination at first hand. In 2015, she lost her teaching job at Thammasat University after issues surrounding her gender identity were brought up by the university committee.

She was informed she was “no longer suitable” to teach at the institution – Thailand’s second-oldest university – because of inappropriate behaviour on social media, referring to a post on Kath’s Instagram account featuring a photo of a penis-shaped tube of lipstick.

“Thammasat never said that my case was discrimination. They said that there was a problem with my behavior on social media,” Kath recalls. “But to me it was related to my identity, to my natural behavior. It was bias.”

According to Kath, the university had never previously shown concern over the social-media activities of its lecturers.

Thai law does little to protect the LGBTI community from discrimination. Same-sex marriages are not recognized and transgender people cannot change their gender on ID cards and other official documents.

Meanwhile, prejudice against the community means its members struggle to be accepted as lawyers, doctors or social workers and are instead confined to the entertainment industry, Kath says.

“Many organizations or companies don’t accept transgenders … because they are biased and they don’t see the abilities that transgender people have,” she says.

A World Bank report released in March found “discrimination [in Thailand] is prevalent when LGBTI people look for a job, access education and healthcare services, buy or rent properties, or seek legal protection”.

And a study by the International Labour Organisation found that many gay men and women hide their sexuality at the workplace, especially in the early stages of their career.

“While some lesbian and gay people reveal their sexual orientation at work, this depends on the workplace culture and the profession, as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is perceived to damage credibility in leadership and high-status jobs,” the study concluded.

A Thai cabaret performer. Workplace discrimination confines many of those in the country’s LGBTI community to work in the entertainment industry.

Kath says the “problem of Thai culture is that this is not a multicultural country. We don’t have people from other ethnic groups. This is why people lack an understanding of diversity.”

Families often refuse to accept the lifestyle choices of their sons and daughters, Kath says, while LGBTI students often face problems at school or university, where teachers are not trained in protecting them from discrimination.

When Nada Chaiyajit completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Phayao, in northern Thailand, she was refused her college documents because she had submitted a photo in which she was dressed as a woman, while her ID card said she was a man.

“There is no legal protection in terms of recognition,” Nada says. “Even if you have sex reassignment surgery, your identity and your official documents will remain as you were born … and that sets barriers on our quality of life.”

Transgender students have long battled for equal rights in Thai universities.

In 2012, Thammasat University allowed for the first time a transgender student to dress as a woman for the graduation ceremony.

Some universities have in recent years allowed students to express their gender identities in official paperwork. However, even these institutions have required the students to request psychological help and obtain a certificate saying they have an identity disorder.

Pink Dot: Singapore’s rare gem for LGBT community shines brighter
Nada refused to toe the line and, rather than obtain such a certificate, filed a complaint against the university with the Committee on Consideration of Unfair Gender Discrimination, saying her freedom of expression had been impinged.

Indeed, Nada’s case offers some hope that attitudes, at least in education, are slowly changing. Both Nada and Kath won cases against their universities, setting important precedents. Kath had to be readmitted by Thammasat University and has been working as a lecturer since June, while Nada graduated in February 2017 without having to change her dress or claiming to have a mental disorder.

LGBTI students often face problems at school or university, where teachers are not trained in protecting them from discrimination.

In other areas, there is cause for optimism, too. A 2015 poll found that almost 89 per cent of Thais would accept colleagues who were gay or lesbian; 80 per cent would not mind if a family member was LGBTI; and 60 per cent were in favour of legalising same-sex marriages.

In the same year as that poll, Thailand approved the Gender Equality Act, a milestone for the country as it outlaws gender-based discrimination. It was this law that led to the creation of the committee that ruled on Nada’s dispute with her university. However, the implementation of the law is progressing slowly, Kath says.

Where will Indonesia’s anti-gay hysteria end?
Meanwhile, the government is discussing a same-sex civil partnership law, which is expected to be passed before the end of the year. It is as yet unclear whether the law will include such basic rights as succession or adoption, though some activists have been critical, saying it will still not put such unions on par with heterosexual marriages.

“Thailand needs some time to move forward so it is a good start to legalise same-sex civil partnerships first,” says Nada, who took part in the drafting of the law. While it might be a landmark of sorts for the LGBTI community, she is clear more is needed.

“We are not starting from scratch. We already have some milestones that we have achieved but it doesn’t mean that our rights are guaranteed,” she says. “It is not enough.”
BY Laura Villadiego
South China Morning Post

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP